was anxious to put a question on a subject which had excited a painful interest in that part of Staffordshire where coal and iron mines were worked. He was informed that the magistrates in that district of the country had come to a decision, putting a construction on a Clause in what was called Lord Ashley's Colliery Act, which had thrown several hundred women out of employment, to the great injury and distress of their families; these women had not worked under ground, but on the surface, in connection with the machinery, and in a way that was neither laborious nor unfeminine. A panic had accordingly prevailed, and in a limited district, if he were correctly informed, not much fewer than a thousand women had been discharged. His question was, whether the Home Secretary had had his attention called to the subject, and whether the right hon. Gentleman were in a condition to make any statement to the House which might serve to remove misapprehension?

was not sorry that the subject had been mentioned. The statement of facts made by his right hon. Friend was in the main correct; a large number of females in the neighbourhood of Bilston, within a circuit of about seven miles, and amounting to about a thousand, had been recently discharged. Their discharge had arisen out of a strained, and, he believed, erroneous construction of two Clauses in the Mining and Colliery Act; and the matter had appeared to him of so much importance, that he had immediately directed the attention of the law officers of the Crown to it, in order that they might come to a decision as to the true meaning of the Clauses, without loss of time. He had informed the inspector that such was the state of the case, and that, as soon as the opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General had been obtained, it should be communicated. He was most anxious that no further discharge of females should take place in the mean time. It was quite true that the women had been employed only at the pit's mouth in the delivery of the baskets, a duty that from the earliest period had been performed by women. Considerable distress had already been occasioned by the construction put upon the Clauses by the Magistrates, and still more would occur, if it were found to prevail; but he trusted that nothing more would be done, until the opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been obtained.

in pursuance of notice, brought forward his Motion for an Address to the Crown, for the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Having been always opposed to the Repeal of the Union, he was anxious to remove what appeared to him a considerable cause of the existing agitation in Ireland. The Resolution he should submit would in effect, declare that the office of Lord Lieutenant was beneficial neither to Ireland nor England. It had been prejudicial, it was still prejudicial, and it would continue to be prejudicial. More than twenty years ago he had submitted a Motion to the House of the same import, and had Members ventured to give an independent opinion on the question, his belief was, that he should have had a majority in his favour. In 1830 he had again brought forward the subject, and although he did not carry his Motion, he counted 117 votes in favour of it, and this he considered, a pretty strong demonstration, considering the state of the House and the influence of the Administration. For some years he had waited in the hope that Government would itself come forward to abolish the office, but when Lord Fortescue was selected for it in 1839, he had given a notice similar to that he had previously introduced; but, unfortunately, no House was made on the evening when he was to have brought forward his motion. He not only saw no objection to now once more inviting the attention of Members to the question, but every reason why he should point out anew some of the evils that had arisen from an injudicious course of policy. Looking at the terms of the Act of Union, and at the opinions of both Houses on the occasion, he was convinced that it never was intended that the Lord Lieutenant should be continued. Forty-four years had passed since the Union, and the avowed object of it was to promote happiness and contentment by a perfect assimilation of the institutions of the two countries. That perfect assimilation had never been accomplished, and at this moment discontent and distraction spread from one end of Ireland to the other. He therefore called upon the House, after a trial of forty-four years, to abolish a system of government which had rendered Ireland little better than a colony like Canada or Jamaica. The experience of the case of Scotland was directly in favour of his Motion; he believed that if a Viceroy had been placed over that country, instead of fairly and honestly consolidating and assimilating the respective institutions, instead of being one of the quietest, Scotland would have been one of the most disturbed countries; yet, at the date of the Union with Scotland, history showed to what an extent destitution and violation of the law prevailed. The example of Scotland ought, therefore, to be well considered by those who were anxious to promote the good government of Ireland. On the 22nd of January, 1799, his Majesty sent the following message to Parliament:

"His Majesty is persuaded that the unremitting industry with which our enemies persevere in their avowed design of effecting the separation of Ireland from this kingdom cannot fail to engage the particular attention of Parliament, and his Majesty recommends it to this House to consider of the most effectual means of counteracting and finally defeating this design; and he trusts that a review of all the circumstances which have recently occurred (joined to the sentiment of mutual affection and common interests) will dispose the Parliament of both kingdoms to provide, in the manner which they shall judge most expedient, for settling such a complete and final adjustment as may best tend to improve and perpetuate a connection essential for their common security, and to augment and consolidate the strength, power, and resources of the British Empire."

The Commons of England re-echoed the sentiments of His Majesty by next day adopting the subsequent Resolution:

"That we entertain a firm persuasion that a complete and entire union between Great Britain and Ireland, founded on equal and liberal principles, on the similarity of laws, constitution, and government, and on a sense of mutual interests and affections, by promoting the security, wealth, and commerce of the respective Kingdoms, and by allaying the distractions which have unhappily prevailed in Ireland, must afford fresh means of opposing at all times an effectual resistance to the destructive projects of our foreign and domestic enemies, and must tend to confirm and augment the stability, power, and resources of the Empire."

The spirit in which the Irish Parliament received the measure, might be seen from the ensuing extract from the address which accompanied the Resolutions:

"We offer them (the Resolutions) in the full conviction that by incorporating the legislature, and by consolidating the resources of the two kingdoms, we shall increase the power and stability of that Empire, and that, by uniting ourselves with your Majesty's subjects of Great Britain under one Parliament and under one Government, we shall most effectually provide for the improvement of our commerce, the security of our religion, and the preservation of our liberties."

To this he might add a short quotation from Mr. Pitt's speech, delivered on the 2nd April, 1800:—

"We must look to this as the only measure we can adopt which can calm the dissensions allay the animosities, and dissipate the jealousies which have unfortunately existed; as a measure whose object is to communicate to the sister kingdom the skill, the capital, and the industry which have raised this country to such a pitch of opulence; to unite the affections and resources of two powerful nations, and to place under one public will the direction of the whole force of the Empire."

Such were the expectations of Mr. Pitt, and the King, in his speech from the throne, had expressed the same sentiment:—

"This great measure (the Union) he should ever consider as the happiest event of his reign, being persuaded that nothing could so effectually contribute to extend to his subjects the full participation of the blessings to be derived from the British constitution, and establish on the most solid foundations the strength, prosperity, and power of the Empire."

Looking at the manner in which the affairs of Ireland had been conducted since that period, he (Mr. Hume) appealed to all who heard him, whether the anticipated results had been realized? He held that the Union had never in fact, been completed; some great efforts had been made, and in many respects the two countries had been assimilated. At the date of the Union Ireland had a separate Secretary at War, a separate Post Office, a separate Excise, and a separate Treasury. But all these departments had since been united to those of Great Britain; though enough of the relics of Irish institutions had all along been preserved to maintain a strong party spirit, and Dublin Castle had been since the Union as before the very seat of corruption and intrigue. Thus, discontent had been fomented, instead of being subdued, and Ireland, which might have been rich and happy, was poor and wretched. When the Motion now under consideration was before the House in 1830, Mr. Spring Rice, now Lord Monteagle, made a most able and conclusive speech in its favour, proving, beyond contradiction, the impossibility of conducting the government of Ireland beneficially under the present system. He said:

"What has been the effect of the local Government of Ireland? It has been to give responsibility without power, and power without responsibility. The effect has been to throw the Government of Ireland into the hands of a little circle, with whom it really rested, however the responsible heads of the administration might be changed. One consequence of this has been, that we have had a continual revolution of changes in that country. Secretary has succeeded secretary, of characters so opposite, that the last has ever appeared to be chosen as if to serve as a contrast to the Gentleman who had preceded him. Let hon. Members only read the list of those who had filled the office of Chief Secretary in Ireland since the Union, and then ask themselves whether it be possible to imagine that a permanent system of Government could be continued by such discordant administrators? Let hon. Members cast up the average duration of each Secretary's remaining in office since the period I have mentioned, and he will find that it amounts to only nineteen months. That, I think, is a sufficient argument against the possibility of an uniform plan of Government having been pursued; but the mere enumeration of some of the names of those who have successively filled the office of Chief Secretary since the period in question will be sufficient to settle that question."

It has been calculated by Mr. Spring Rice, that in the thirty years preceding the Union there had been fourteen different Secretaries of State for Ireland, and they were these:—Sir John Blaquire, Sir Richard Heron, William Eden, Hon. Edward Fitzpatrick, Mr. W. Grenville, W. Wyndham, Hon. Thomas Pelham, Thomas Orde, Alleyne Fitzherbert, Robert Hobart, Sylvester Douglas, Lord George Darner, Hon. Thomas Pelham, Viscount Castlereagh. In the thirty years following the Union there had been no fewer than sixteen Secretaries for Ireland, and their names were: — Viscount Castlereagh, Right Hon. C. Abbott, William Wick-ham, Sir Evan Nepean, Nicholas Vansittart, Charles Long, William Elliott, Sir Arthur Wellesley, Robert Dundas, W.. W. Pole, Robert Peel, Charles Grant, Henry Goulburn, William Lamb, Lord Gower, Sir Henry Hardinge. Since 1830, Ireland had had the benefit of the services of several other secretaries, including Mr. Littleton, Lord Stanley, Lord F. Egerton, Lord Morpeth, and Lord Eliot; and he (Mr. Hume) doubted whether any of them had had time to make themselves acquainted with the real condition and interests of Ireland. He might quote the opinion of nearly every Irishman against the present system of Government in his country, and especially of Mr. Brownlow, now advanced to the peerage. But Lord Monteagle bad put the evils in so strong and clear a light that he could not refrain from making another short quotation from his speech delivered on the 11th of May, 1830:—

"It is right, upon this subject, to speak openly, and I will ask those who are acquainted with the real state of things in Dublin, whether they believe my noble Friend opposite (Lord Francis Egerton) possesses any real influence in the Government of Ireland? I will ask them, whether they believe the noble Duke at the head of the Administration, or the right hon. Home Secretary, possess that influence? They cannot; for, whether rightly or wrongly, they believe it to be exercised by a small coterie at the Castle, long in possession of an irresponsible office, but who, in fact, govern Ireland; and, rightly or wrongly, that is the general opinion of the people of that country, who conceive, that it is thus the nominal Government is deprived of its strength. But let us examine the result of the present system in another point of view: suppose that the Chief Secretary and Lord Lieutenant are so entirely identified with the Home Office, that not the slightest variance occurs between them. In that case, you only interpose an useless piece of machinery between the Home Office here and the administration of affairs in Ireland; but suppose, on the other hand, that you have a Lord Lieutenant of strong feelings, of honourable, upright, unbending, unswerving character—not on the best possible terms with the Government at home—suppose such a Lord Lieutenant drawing one way, the Home Secretary drawing another, with the Chief Secretary for Ireland, perhaps, impartial between the contending parties—what must be the result? Is it possible that such a coalition can produce a system of Government beneficial to the country in which it is established?"

What had not long since taken place at Clontarf was a strong illustration of the inconvenience of the present system. The delay in the issue of the proclamation was owing to the existence of a delegated authority; for if there had been no Lord Lieutenant to be consulted, but the Home Office had acted at once, the threatened danger of a collision could never have occurred. What he wished was, to induce the House to complete the Union, which was yet imperfect; take away the local Government, and one great cause of discontent would be removed. On this account he believed that his Motion would be opposed principally by Irish Members, who were anxious for the Repeal of the Union. The hon. and learned Member for Cork had fairly avowed his purpose of maintaining the nationality of his country, and nobody could look at the agitation he had excited without being satisfied that to withdraw the Lord Lieutenant, and to abolish his office, would be the most effectual mode of allaying discontent. This was a question in which Irishmen alone were not concerned; it was as much an English question as any that could be discussed, for the welfare of England depended upon a real and effectual Union with Ireland. At present, under a Viceroy, Ireland was much in the condition of a conquered country, and she had been most unjustly deprived of some of her dearest rights and privileges; in fact, justice could never be done to Ireland until the office of Lord Lieutenant no longer existed. By a Return upon the Table, it appeared that there were no fewer than between sixty and seventy places in Ireland where barracks had been repaired within the last year, and where troops were quartered for the purpose of keeping down the discontent of the people, and their agitation in the cause of Repeal. Agitation for Repeal was the effect, and the Lord Lieutenant was the cause, and if the cause were removed, the effect of course, would cease. He had pointed out one reason for this discontent. The abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant would cause a direct saving of 100,000l. a year; and he believed it would save altogether 1,100,000l. now spent in keeping Ireland down. Ireland was in as bad a state in 1844 as it was after the rebellion in 1798. It was time to turn over a new leaf, and he believed that great good could be done by bringing that country under a Secretary of State, with a Secretary for Ireland sitting by him, and with a seat in the Cabinet. The mode in which the Establishment could be reduced by the removal of the Lord Lieutenant he would leave for his hon. Friend who would second the Motion. He would only ask, what injury could arise from the abolition? In 1830, the hon. Member for Cork had stated that Ireland was in great distress; but Sir H. Parnell, and Mr. Brownlow had both denied that property would be depreciated if the Lord Lieutenant were removed. The loss would be a small question compared with the advantages which would be gained by Ireland. He believed that Dublin had already lost much of its productive industry from various causes, but if party spirit were quelled, and the focus of discontent removed, good would be effected. It was a matter of vast importance that this country should remove one of the great grievances of that country. The right hon. Baronet had stated that Ireland was his great annoyance—he feared that she was found to be so now, and she would be till a new mode were adopted of governing her. The Orange party had now the power, and he would ask even them, whether it were possible, with the existence of a viceroy, that there could be content? He had submitted his Motion to the House in three different forms; whether, in its present shape it were best he knew not, but it appeared to him to meet the case. He had no wish to interfere with the present Viceroy, he had no ground of complaint to make against him. His complaint was against the office, and not against the individual. Ireland was now in a position at which no Friend of that country could look with indifference; they had the means of allaying the discontent, but they had adopted the wrong course. He called upon them to act justly in performance of the pledge given at the Union. Hitherto the Irish had been used harshly and unjustly; favour had been given to one party and not to the whole population; and he called upon the House to let Ireland have that good Government to which she was entitled. The hon. Member concluded by moving—

"That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to consider whether it would not be for the advantage of Ireland, and to the interest of the United Kingdom, to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."

seconded the Motion. In the course of the last Session, and during the debate on the State of Ireland, the House could not fail to have been struck with the observation of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, who defined Ireland to be a country afflicted with a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, an alien Church, and the weakest Executive in the known world. He hoped, before he sat down, the House would be convinced, not only that it was the weakest, but the most mischievous Executive in the known world. Although, by one of the fictions of the Constitution, Ireland was an integral part of the Empire, yet the Government was administered in a Colonial form, with this only difference, that in the Colonies there was equal responsibility between the Home and the Colonial Government: in Ireland there was no such division; for, however efficient the Irish Executive might be, it was neutralised and overborne by a Cabinet sitting in London. The consequence was, that the Irish Executive, having no great matters to which they could devote themselves, were constantly meddling with small and insignificant matters, which laid the foundation of all the petty intrigues and all the factions which were known to exist in the Castle of Dublin. In the time of Mr. Pitt, good might have been intended for Ireland; but the Union had left all his good intentions unaccomplished, and Ireland had been deprived of all good measures by the changes of party in this country. If he looked to the Act of Union, he could see no reason for retaining the office of Lord Lieutenant, and there was not now, as much reason as there was then. Thanks to railroads and steam, Ireland was as near to London now as to Edinburgh; he thought that, during the last week, one of the newspapers, the Morning Herald, had received an express from Dublin in sixteen hours; and yet they were trifling with that country by keeping up a quasi King, a semi-regal Court, a Privy Council, and all the outward and visible signs of a separate Kingdom, without the inward and spiritual grace of a separate Parliament. In the first place, the office was always given to a political partisan. He went over, and what happened? If he took a Whig Lord Lieutenant, on his very first appearance the Tory nobility and gentry treated him with great contempt; his character was aspersed in the public prints. If he chanced to appoint a Roman Catholic, a relative of the great demagogue, to office —nay, if he went a little further, and asked the hon. Gentleman himself to dinner, all the Orange dowagers of both sexes launched their anathemas against the Government, and declared that the Constitution was destroyed. What happened if there was a Conservative Lord Lieutenant? The Dublin coteries were in extacies, the Tory Lords and gentlemen exulted, whilst the people were disheartened; the Protestant Associations—a class whom Burke describes as "never showing any wonderful zeal for religion, except when it was employed in mortifying their neighbours"— addressed the new Lord Lieutenant as the man designed by Scripture to burn the temples and overthrow the altars of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. According to the reports, this address would be received with the warmest acknowledgments, and the Roman Catholics would be disgusted. They believed that if they did not receive kindness, they ought, at least, to experience impartiality; the most virulent party spirit would pervade all private society; and the Chief Ruler of Ireland, instead of being looked upon as the Queen's Representative, would be viewed only as the head of a party. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite would concede that Government in Ireland, as elsewhere, was an experimental, and, therefore, a progressive science, it was remarkable, that for 672 years, Government had made no progress in Ireland. In the year 1172, King Henry II. appointed an English Lord Lieutenant to preside over his newly-acquired dominions, and in 1844 he still found that an English Lord Lieutenant still presided over the destinies of Ireland. Now, it would appear that the Government of Ireland was administered by three principal Officers, a Lord Lieutenant, a Lord Chancellor, and a Chief Secretary. It had been almost uniformly the practice, in filling these high offices, to select Englishmen. From 1711 to 1800 there had been but one Irishman filling the office of Lord Lieutenant—James, Duke of Ormonde; and from 1800 to the present day there had been only one more—the Marquess of Wellesley. Again, with respect to the office of Lord Chancellor. From 1760 to the present day, there had been twelve Lord Chancellors, of whom only three were Irishmen. Down from the same time to the present, there had been forty-two Chief Secretaries, of whom only seven were Irishmen, or connected with Ireland. Attached to each of those offices were numerous minor and mischievous employées. There was the Under Secretary and his clique, the Attorney General and his clique, and that very anomalous Officer, whose office he hardly knew how to define, who held a most important office, but who was in no way responsible, although he was as necessary a person about the Castle as was a prompter in the theatre, whose voice was occasionally heard, but who was himself never seen, yet who pulled all the strings—the Law Adviser of the Castle. He would venture to say that though the Lord Lieutenant might wear the likeness of a Kingly Crown, he could not take office without being controlled by the Secretary of State at the Home Office, where it could not be supposed that the wishes and wants of the Irish people could be very well understood. He had in favour of his own views the authority of a Gentleman holding a high office, and whose opinion was very much respected, and who would, no doubt, be found voting with him in a powerful minority that evening. The right hon. the Recorder of Dublin (Mr. Shaw) in 1843, and on 30th May, said:—

"But the truth was, in times of any emergency, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was a most anomalous office—it was a painful position for any man of high and independent spirit; he had neither the irresponsibility of the Crown nor the power of a Minister. He was controlled in what his own better judgment would dictate; and constantly blamed for what he had not authority to control. Here, be it observed, he (Mr. Shaw) spoke of the nature of the office, and not of the practice pursued towards the individual Lord Lieutenant. Then as to his (Mr. Shaw's) noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, nothing could exceed his courtesy and politeness, and his disposition to please everybody, and to do all that he thought for the good of the country; but men of business and irrespective of party complained that there seemed no independent power belonging to the office. What was agreed to in Dublin might or might not be ratified or even heard of in London. The care of our public institutions—the legislation for local objects—measures for opening the internal resources of the country, and giving labour to an unemployed population, and the general and unpolitical interests of the country appeared to be postponed to the more pressing and urgent business of the departments in England through which Ireland was indirectly governed. It was difficult to know where Irish business was done, or omitted to be done— an unseen hand was supposed to direct it, and that of one who was acquainted with the wants, the feelings, the wishes, or the circumstances of the people of Ireland."

Was there any Gentleman in that House who knew the nature of the office better than the right hon. Gentleman? What stronger opinion could be given? He knew that this was a most prevalent opinion. He need only refer, as an authority to a name which was universally known and universally respected—the Duke of Leinster—who looked upon the existence of the office of Lord Lieutenant as one of the remote causes of the agitation for the Repeal of the Union. Well, but it might be said, that the Dublin trade would be such great opponents of a change that it would be totally impossible to carry out the Measure. Although, however, they removed the office of Lord Lieutenant, they might still take the grant, and could apply it towards the remission of the local taxation. He merely threw out the suggestion. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed at that application, but why might it not be applied towards public works? To anything except what Lord Castlereagh had said, "digging holes and burying shillings in them" —to improve the moral and social condition of the people. Surely there was no defence for the continuance. Although a large establishment was the consequence of the Lord Lieutenancy, it did not exercise so beneficial an influence on the present tone of society as was supposed. He had the honour for seven years, of being upon the staff of the Lord Lieutenant under Lord Normanby and Lord Fortescue, and so far from the Lord Lieutenancy producing habits of union, it had proved a fertile source of jealousy. It was a mimic representation of royalty, which tended to bring royalty itself into contempt. The drawing rooms and levees contributed as much as anything towards this. During the appointment of Lord Normanby it was a taunt that the drawing-rooms and levees were not attended by the aristocracy; but he had been much amused the other day, in selecting from a Dublin newspaper, advertisements relative to the occasion of a levee under the present aristocratic system. In Saunders News Letter of the 1st of March, 1844, he found, amongst many other advertisements, the following;—

"Dublin Castle

"Notice.—Gentlemen who purpose attending the approaching levee at the Castle ean be supplied with a claret brown court dress on hire for 2s. 6d. per suit each day, secresy observed. This being the lowest charge made for the hire of a claret brown suit to the humble class of people for tee-total and Repeal processions, fancy balls, &c., there can be no deviation from it. J. Bagnall and Son, merchant tailors, 137 Capel Street."

The House would gather from this advertisement, that in the estimation of the tailor at least, the tee-total processions were upon a level with the levees, that the same claret brown suit would do for both, and, what was of more importance to the wearer, that the charge would be the same. If they did away with the office of Lord Lieutenant, it might be asked how the duty was to be discharged? They could not throw it upon the Home Office, which already had employment enough; and a number of Bills which, God knew, it would be difficult enough to tell when they would pass. But what objection could there be to the appointment of a fourth Secretary of State with a seat in the Ca- binet, which the Secretary for Ireland could not now have without being placed above his superior? There was only one other proposal to which he would refer. Mr. Grattan had defined the true genius of the Irish nation to be "affectionate." He would not recall to the House their desperate fidelity to a fallen race of monarchs: but till the Hanoverian succession, they had never seen a monarch except under arms against them. The three first Sovereigns of the house of Hanover had not visited Ireland; and when they saw a bonâ fide live King, on the occasion of George IV. landing there, the impression of his footstep was cut out of the solid rock on which he stepped. In the event of the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, he warmly recommended the right hon. Gentleman to advise Her Majesty to spend a certain part of every year in Ireland; and if she did this, she would go far towards realising the poetical peroration of the right hon. Gentleman, and appear in Ireland as an angel of peace, leaving, not her footsteps engraven on the barren rock, but her memory living in the hearts of a loyal, a faithful, and a devoted people.

willingly conceded that this was not a party question; that it did not involve any general principle or rule of policy, and that it was a question to be considered according to the exigencies of time and circumstances. But when hon. Gentlemen proposed to abolish an office which had existed for five hundred years, he thought they were bound to show not only that some great evils were inherent in it, but that they were prepared with a substitute which would accomplish the ends they had in view. Now he thought the evils attending the office had been overstated, and the evils of abolishing it understated. The hon. Mover had referred to debates in 1822 and 1830, and had read passages from the speeches of Mr. Pitt and others, but he was at a loss to understand their bearing upon the question, or wherein they recommended the transference of the local Government to London. He begged to remind the hon. Gentleman that Mr. O'Connell, who, he had never denied, represented the opinions of a large portion of his countrymen, had staled that a disinclination was manifested by all classes of the people of Ireland to the abolition of the Vice-Royalty — that they considered it would lead to increased absenteeism, and that the presence in Ireland of a person of high rank to preside over the administra- tion of affairs was calculated to exercise a controlling influence over factions which was not to be expected from a government of clerks. Another great authority on such matters, Sir John Newport, had said, that the feelings of the people of Ireland would be exasperated by the removal of the seat of Government from Dublin, He agreed with the hon. Member that there was nothing in the Act of Union stipulating for the continuance of the Lord Lieutenancy, but he believed there was at that time a tacit understanding that the seat of Government should remain in Ireland. On the part of the Lord Lieutenant and in his own behalf, he denied that the Irish Government was led by clerks and cliques; the officers of that Government held themselves responsible for their actions, they acted on the purest and sincerest motives; and he repudiated and repelled the insinuations cast out against them. The hon. Gentleman had suggested the appointment of a fourth Secretary of State, but the hon. Gentleman had not attempted to show by what machinery he would carry on the affairs of Government for Ireland, which were now carried on at the seat of that Government in Dublin. To transfer those powers, to reconstruct that machinery, would be a very difficult task. There was hardly a single Act of Parliament relating to Ireland which did not vest in the Lord Lieutenant himself, or in the Lord Lieutenant and Council certain powers. If the office of Lord Lieutenant were abolished, it would not do merely to transfer by a sweeping clause, all such powers to the Secretary of State, but it would be requisite to revise and reconsider every Act of Parliament, or otherwise they would be involved in inextricable difficulties. There were also considerable powers vested in the Privy Council. In whose hands should those powers be vested if the office of Lord Lieutenant were to be abolished? To transfer these powers to England would be productive of the greatest inconvenience, as all matters of business with a variety of local details now came under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant in Council. Hon. Members were perhaps not aware of the extent of the duties devolving on the Secretary for Ireland. There were in his office — one Chief Clerk, Seven Assistants, and eight Junior Clerks, and one Law officer. The first division had to attend to the correspondence relating to the Magistracy, the Clerks of the Crown, and Clerks of the Peace, which was neither light nor trivial. The other division had to attend to ecclesiastical matters, to prepare Returns to Parliament (which were neither small in number nor volume), to carry on business connected with the constabulary, militia, &c., to conduct the correspondence with the Crown Solicitors, on matters relating to convictions and remission of sentences, &c.; all this demanded a great deal of time and trouble. This last was a most important duty; for in every case where the least doubt arose, application was made to the Lord Lieutenant for remission; and in 1843, no less than 1270 such cases arose —each of which involved a lengthened correspondence, and frequently oral communications with the Judges who presided. Looking at this mass of business and its nature, it appeared to him that the removal of the seat of it from Dublin to London, and thus depriving the various parties interested of speedy and easy access to the Government, would tend to the greatest inconvenience. Besides this there was a continual application for law opinions. Objections had been made to the officer in Ireland called the law adviser to the Crown. But that law officer was a responsible officer, and a necessary one. In Ireland it was the practice to refer to the Crown for advice in all matters of difficulty. The paid and unpaid Magistrates, the constabulary, and various other parties, made these references. It was not the practice here, but such was the multitude of such applications in Ireland that the Attorney and Solicitor General could not, consistently with the discharge of their other duties, attend to them. Hence the necessity of a law adviser, and this formed another reason against removing the seat of Government. If the hon. Gentleman contemplated the entire removal of these departments from Dublin, independently of the general inconvenience, it would materially increase the expense. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of Scotland, but that was not a parallel case. There was no identity of institutions between England and Scotland. He admitted, that in Scotland a local Executive was not wanted, but a very different state of society prevailed in Scotland and Ireland; He did not wish to provoke a debate on the state of Ireland; but perhaps he might say, without offence, that in Scotland the obedience to the law was the rule; and though he would not go so far as to gay that in Ireland the reverse was the rule, yet the people of Ireland were not disposed to pay the same obedience to the law as in Scotland. Disturbances and outrages were much more frequent in Ireland, and consequently it much more required the presence of a local Executive, which should be ready to take upon itself the resposibility of immediate action; and he thought it would be difficult to maintain the public peace in Ireland, unless there were upon the spot an officer vested with the authority of the Lord Lieutenant. The hon. Gentleman had complained of the changes that took place, and of the number of successive Lords Lieutenant; but that was a natural consequence of the representative form of Government. There had, probably, been nearly as many Home Secretaries as Lords Lieutenant, and if the hon. Gentleman thought it so desirable to have a stable Government for Ireland, and a permanent Lord Lieutenant, the best thing he could do would be to support with all his powers the present Government. But, joking aside, he entirely dissented from the doctrines of the hon. Gentleman, nor could he agree with him that Ireland was treated as a colony. In all matters of foreign commerce, in her representation in that House, and in other general matters, she was on the same footing as any other portion of the United Kingdom; and the mere fact of there being in Ireland an executive officer to administer the laws adopted in the United Legislature surely did not constitute any reason for considering Ireland as a colony? He believed that the general disposition of the people of Ireland was against the proposed change, and he thought nothing would dissatisfy that people so much as the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Member for the transference of the seat of Government to this country. Without thus pledging himself to maintain, under a different state of things, the office of Lord Lieutenant, he must on the present occasion resist the Motion for its abolition.

said, the noble Lord had stated that such a change as the Motion of the hon. Member contemplated would be very unsatisfactory to the people of Ireland. He (Lord John Russell) had had occasion to consider, in former years, whether it were advisable to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant, and although he thought there were reasons of great force in favour of such a step, yet he came to the conclusion that it was not expedient at that time to make such a change; and he should think that this likewise was a time in which it would not be expedient to carry that change into effect. He thought the noble Lord was justified in saying, that in the present state of the country it could not with safety be done. As to the best mode of governing Ireland, he had no hesitation in saying that the government by the Lord Lieutenant was not the best; and he, therefore, disagreed with the noble Lord in many of the reasons which he stated. He had said that many things were done by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and it was necessary that it should be so. It could not be doubted, if it was thought expedient for general purposes to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant, that such arrangements might be made as would obviate the difficulties which the noble Lord had pointed out. That was a subject upon which a very great man had given his opinion. Soon after the Union with Scotland it was said that a Privy Council ought to be maintained in that country; but Lord Somers gave it as his opinion that it was not advisable to keep such a Council. He said that so long as there was a Privy Council in Scotland there would be a separate administration —a separate mode of transacting affairs —and so long as the Union existed, which he was most instrumental in causing, it could not be properly carried into effect by such a provision. As to the other matters alluded to by the noble Lord, as creating difficulties in the event of such a change taking place he (Lord J. Russell) could not at all see that they would exist. The noble Lord had said, that Scotland had very different laws and institutions from England, whereas Ireland had the same laws and institutions; why, that might be an argument why Scotland should not be united under the same institutions as England and Ireland, but it surely could not support the argument of the noble Lord in favour of separate institutions for Ireland. But the fact was, that the difference of the institutions of Scotland created no difficulty, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department found that he could exercise his functions as easily with reference to the opinions of the Scotch Judges, as the English Judges. Another reason which the noble Lord had given, was with reference to the application of Magistrates and others to the Castle of Dublin for advice, He (Lord J. Russell) thought it was advisable to diminish the number of such applications. Nothing was more admirable in the constitution of English society than the confidence displayed in local decisions. The people were easily amenable to the law, and generally satisfied with its administration, and there was scarcely one case in a hundred where it was thought necessary to appeal from the decisions of the local authorities, and resort to the Government. But he was sorry to say it was not so in Ireland. In that country there was a reluctance to come to any decision for which the parties might be responsible, and it was the practice to refer to the Government to relieve individual responsibility, and throw it on the Executive Government. So far from that being an advantage, be thought it an evil. He thought the abolition of such a system would produce a good general effect, and if the office of Lord Lieutenant were abolished, the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be the proper person to exercise these functions. He thought, as a general question it would be a convenience to the Executive Government if the office were abolished; and if the present Government did not consent to its abolition, it was because they felt that it would now affect their power in carrying on the Government of Ireland. He would not, therefore, embarrass the Government by voting for the Motion. He would not now support the abolition of the office, although he thought the government of Ireland would be better carried on without it.

had been so pointedly referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, who seconded the Motion, that he could not avoid saying a few words upon it. He confessed that the subject was one on which he would rather not express a positive opinion. The local trade of Dublin, in which he felt a deep interest, would be depressed, at all events, in the first instance, by the removal of the viceregal residence; and the society of Dublin and its vicinity would probably suffer from the same cause. But, on the other hand he must acknowledge that public opinion in Ireland had undergone a considerable change in respect of the policy of retaining the office of Lord Lieutenant in that country. It was impossible not to feel for a high-minded and independent man, such as the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, placed in the anomalous situation he was, with the name without the reality of power, charged with the responsibility without virtually possessing the control of the Government of that country, while those in whom that Government was substantially vested were subject to no direct responsibility. Whatever, therefore, might be his personal prejudices in favour of the continuance of the office of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, he was not prepared to affirm that, in a comprehensive view of the question, the state of things which he had described, and with respect to which he believed there was a very general unanimity of opinion amongst all parties in Ireland, could be regarded as likely ultimately to be conducive to the best interests of that country. He meant, the nominal responsibility without the real power of a Lord Lieutenant, and the real power without the due responsibility of the department by which the affairs of Ireland were virtually governed. He would recommend the hon. Member for Montrose not to divide the House, by doing so he would probably commit Members against his proposition, whose minds were gradually becoming favourable to it. He concurred with the noble Lord, (Lord J. Russell) that to agree in the Motion of the hon. Member would amount to an expression of the opinion of the House that the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should be immediately abolished. He was not prepared to do that—he felt that it was a question which could only be settled satisfactorily by the hands of the Executive Government—strengthened by the general feeling of all parties in Ireland—therefore, notwithstanding the opinions of his own, which had been quoted that evening, and which he did not retract, and those which he had then expressed—if the hon. Member divided the House, he must vote against him.

had been twelve or thirteen years in Ireland, and, for one, was fully convinced that it would be greatly to the disadvantage of the country to remove the Lord Lieutenant; and he believed that the majority of the people fully agreed with him. The great grievances of Ireland were absenteeism and want of employment; the first of these evils would be greatly increased by the removal of the Lord Lieutenant, and he was convinced that the employment which was given to the trade of Dublin would be greatly diminished by his removal. He trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, but if his hon. Friend did not he must vote against it: at the same time, he must say, he was surprised that his hon. Friend the Member for High Wycombe (Captain Bernal), who was one of the gayest Members of the most brilliant Court ever held in Dublin, should have advocated a proposal for abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

thought the subject which was then before the House to be one that they had a right to consider without any party views or considerations whatever. It was in that light that he wished to regard it; and he, therefore, trusted that any hon. Members opposite, who had formed an opinion on the matter, would not be deterred from putting their views before the House, under the impression that they might be supposed to be offering any opposition in so doing to the noble Lord, or to any other portion of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland. As far as he was concerned, he could state that if it had been brought in during the office of the late Administration his vote would have been precisely the same as he intended it should be on the present occasion. The present appeared to him to be, under any Government, a most anomalous state of things. It showed Ireland in the light of a colonial dependency, without, at the same time, possessing the advantage of a colonial legislature. But still, striking as that anomaly appeared, it was useless to think of applying a remedy unless the Government were found prepared to take the subject in hand, and without the expression of public opinion strongly and repeatedly upon it, they could scarcely hope that any Minister of the Crown would be found possessing sufficient public virtue to initiate a measure which must have the effect of depriving him of an important item of patronage. The noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland stated, as one of his arguments against the motion, that Mr. O'Connell was in favour of the continuance of the office of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland; and he confessed he was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord put forward such a ground as a reason for his opposing the Motion. He certainly did not happen to be of the same opinion, as he was disposed to regard the office as a remnant of the de- pendency of Ireland. He conceived that the object of the Government ought to be to endeavour to do away with every vestige of dependency in Ireland, by completely identifying that country in all things with England. He was sorry, however, that the noble Lord was doing so very little in effecting the latter object, however anxious he might be to concur with Mr. O'Connell's views with regard to the former. He had taken the trouble of looking over the last debate on the subject, and he perceived that on that occasion the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) declared it to be his opinion that Ireland was at that time by no means in a fit state for such a change. That he thought the Local Executive a check upon a country so remote, and he reminded the House that Ireland was an ancient kingdom, which, until late years, had a separate legislature. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer referred on that occasion to the difficulty that existed to the proposed alteration on account of the patronage attached to the office, and the then Secretary for Ireland, Lord Leveson Gower, put forward the argument used by the noble Lord (Lord Eliot) with respect to the mitigation of sentences. With respect to the last objection it would necessarily apply with equal weight to Scotland; and if the argument were applicable to Ireland it would be equally strong in favour of appointing a Lord Lieutenant in Scotland. He never heard the Scotch Members complain of any difficulty or inconvenience in being under the necessity of making their applications in such matters direct to the Home Office. With respect to the question of patronage relied on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was one which unfortunately appeared, in the manner in which it was exercised, to be used but very little according to the desires of the Irish people. The majority of the people of Ireland wished to have none but Irishmen appointed to public offices in that country, but it was well known that that wish was not acted upon. Then came the statement of the right. hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, with regard to the remoteness of the country, but it should be recollected that since that time the communication between the two countries was materially improved. That the distance between London and Dublin was now performed in twenty hours, and would in a few months be reduced to fifteen hours' travelling. That argument had therefore, he considered, very little weight, and he passed from it to the question of the injury that the removal of the Viceroy would cause to Dublin. He was inclined to think that if the money were given to Dublin in some other shape, the absence of the Lord Lieutenant would not be felt as a very great calamity. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the Motion gave them a pretty good proof that the Viceregal Court was not so extensive and important as some persons might be inclined to suppose; and with regard to the prosperity of Dublin not subsisting without the presence of the Lord Lieutenant, it was he thought absurd. They should recollect that Dublin had many attractions to make it a desirable residence. It had the University, the Courts of Law, the Garrison, and other prominent sources of attraction to induce the higher orders to reside there permanently. As far as the other parts of the country were concerned, he believed the presence of the Queen's representative in Dublin did not make the slightest difference in the world. But for the newspapers, persons in the country would never be aware whether he was at all in the country or not. If the duties of the Lord Lieutenant consisted merely in holding levees and drawing-rooms, they were of very little importance indeed; and if measures for the Government of the country emanated from him, he had no power or opportunity to press their adoption in the Cabinet. If, on the other hand, the Secretary for Ireland originated public measures, he was still in but a subordinate character, not answerable for their execution afterwards. He thought the question of the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was, on the whole, one well worthy of consideration in that House, and he believed he could assure them that Irishmen of all parties were agreed in thinking that it would be infinitely more for their advantage to have an Irish Executive in that House responsible for its acts and prepared to defend them, instead of as at present eternally referring to Dublin for information on every matter to which the attention of Government was drawn respecting Ireland. He supported the Motion, and he hoped that hon. Members connected with Ireland on the other side of the House, would come forward and declare their opinions in favour of the question, as it was one which he thought pressed equally upon both parties, and which ought to be renewed every Session until Government finally resolved on allowing the evil to be removed.

thought no hon. Member ought to vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman unless he was convinced that the office of Lord Lieutenant should be at once abolished; because nothing would be so unwise as to retain the Lord Lieutenancy, and paralyze its operation by such a vote as that sought for by the hon. Member for Montrose. The power and efficiency of the Lord Lieutenant might be greatly affected if the House of Commons said by its vote that the office ought to be abolished. He should be sorry to express an opinion in favour of the permanent continuance of that office. He thought that the first impression which would present itself to the mind was, that England, Ireland, and Wales, should be governed in the same way. But he should most strongly deprecate any resolution which would weaken the authority of the Lord Lieutenant until they were prepared to establish what they would substitute if they abolished the office. At the same time he thought there were greater difficulties in the way of its abolition than might at first be supposed. As to the patronage which belonged to the office, if that was the only objection, the Government ought not to consider that for a moment. The Church patronage would be all transferred to the First Lord of the Treasury; and it would be more desirable surely for the present and all future Governments, if patronage was the principal object to be sought after, that all patronage should be transferred from Dublin to Downing-street. He was afraid the abolition of the office would tend greatly to encourage absenteeism. A great number of persons now went to Dublin to make application to, and hold conference with, the Executive Government. He would say, do not let any mere question of the expenditure of the Lord Lieutenant's Court in Dublin, deter the House from entering upon the question; but at the same time do not let it be omitted in the consideration of the subject. He feared that one of the effects of adopting this proposition would be to increase absenteeism, and induce Irish Gentlemen to come to England to transact business more frequently, and for longer periods than at present. The hon. Member suggested that there should be another Secretary of State, who should devote himself to the affairs of Ireland, but this involved several most serious considerations. The abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy would tend to the amalgamation of the Government of the two countries, which would pro tanto, be an advantage; but if there was another Secretary of State to whom the affairs of Ireland were to be entrusted, there would be greater division in the Government than there was at present. Taking away the control of Irish affairs from the Secretary for the Home Department, and transferring them to a second Secretary of State for internal affairs, would involve matters of serious consideration. There was great advantage in having one mind to preside over the internal affairs of the whole of the United Kingdom, but if another Secretary of State was appointed it would create great confusion and infinitely greater division than existed at present. It would be remembered that the Lord Lieutenant was a subordinate officer, although certainly he held a high office of great dignity, and he was bound to act upon the instructions which he received from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. For his own part, he entertained objections to the Secretary for Ireland for the time being having a seat in the Cabinet, and similar objections existed to the proposed Secretary of State having a seat in it. His objection rose from the circumstance that he would be necessarily absent for six months in Ireland. This officer, then, as Secretary of State, would be responsible for foreign affairs, although he was absent from the Cabinet Meetings when the usual matters were discussed. Again, how was he competent to form opinions on matters which had long been under discussion in the Cabinet during his absence for six months. He thought to have a Secretary of State who was necessarily absent from the Cabinet during six months of the year would be a great anomaly in the Constitution. During the period, also, that this fourth Secretary of State was in this country who was to administer the affairs of Ireland? The hon. Member said, that he always feared the intrigues of under secretaries and legal advisers in Ireland, who, not being responsible, were always indulging in and exciting local and party feelings, and prejudices. Now, would the hon. Member say, that there was any security against the creation or manifestation of similar conduct during the absence of this fourth Secretary of State? For his own part, he saw what would be the consequence of the absence of this Secretary of State while attending his Parliamentary duties. The hon. Member said that all the inferior offices of the Government should be filled by Irishmen. While the Secretary of State was away, a conflict would arise in Dublin between the different leading men connected with the Government, with the view of obtaining the chief control. This would give rise to endless intrigues and jealousies, and would be productive of the most serious injury to the Government. So far, therefore, from putting an end to the complaints which the hon. Member made against the subordinate officers of the Irish Government, by abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant, he believed that the grounds for such complaints would be greatly increased. These were conclusive reasons to his mind against the proposition of the hon. Member. It would be the duty of the House and the Government well to consider what it would substitute before they attempted to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. There was now but one responsible Minister acting under the authority of the Queen for the internal government of the whole of the United Kingdom, and he thought that it would be pregnant with mischief to divide this power. He might here observe, that he did not believe that the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department was ever filled by a person better acquainted with the details of business, or one better qualified to transact the business of his department, than his right hon. Friend near him. It was part of the duty of his right hon. Friend to superintend the legislation for the internal Government of Ireland as well as of England. He admitted that there was often very great difficulty in dealing with Irish questions, to legislate on, not only in consequence of their complexity, but also from the great difficulty that existed in mitigating the opposition that was almost sure to be excited on one side or the other. For instance, there was apparently a simple question to deal with, namely, the administration of the Grand Jury Laws, and this had been before Parliament for twenty years, and the matter was not yet settled. To revert, however, to the motion of the hon. Member, he felt that the whole question required the most serious consideration before it could be touched, and, above all, he felt that it was a matter with respect to which the feelings of the people of Ireland should be almost unanimous. If there was a strong and preponderating feeling manifested by the people of Ireland, that the abolition of this office was desirable, it would produce great weight in his mind. Hitherto there had been no opportunity offered of getting at the state of public opinion on the subject. He believed that one of the great objections of the people of Ireland to this proposition would be found to be, that it would operate as an inducement of a much larger number of Irish Gentlemen than at present to take up their residence in this metropolis. He repeated that the whole matter required the most extended consideration before he could consent to abolish the office, and, above all, he felt that it was a question of such a nature, that if it was to be dealt with, it should be taken up on the responsibility of the Government. He hoped that in what he had said, he had not shown any strong prejudices on the subject. He admitted the advantages that would result from the unity of Government, but do not let the House of Commons adopt a course which would weaken and paralize the Government in Ireland, and for which they could not substitute a better.

could not vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, as he did not think that he had made out any case in the arguments which he had adduced, which could justify the House in abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He denied that there was any analogy between the cases of Scotland and Ireland—he wished that the analogy could be proved. If they would establish in Ireland a policy that would no longer force the people of that country to support a Church in whose religious opinions they did not believe, if they would not continue to force the majority of the Irish people to support the Church of the minority—if they consented to place the people of Ireland in the same position in that respect as the people of Scotland, then he would be willing to give up the office of Lord Lieutenant, with all the emoluments and dignity which belonged to it. He felt that however pure might be the intentions of the hon. Member for Montrose, and of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had seconded his Motion, their interference would be received with considerable suspicion by the people of Ireland. They would say, "You and your English Government have deprived us of our Parliament—of our aristocracy —of all the great local establishments of our country—you have robbed our Exchequer—you have involved us in the liability for your national debt—you have made us contribute to the support of your naval and all other establishments—you make us support in ostentation an alien church which is discordant to our religious principles, and having done all that, you now endeavour to deprive us of the only remnant of national dignity that you have left us our Lord Lieutenant, because you are obliged to contribute, in some trifling amount, towards the support of his establishment." Now, under existing circumstances, he was rather indifferent as to whether the Lord Lieutenant remained in Ireland or not, as he did not think the pecuniary expenditure in Dublin consequent on his official residence in their Metropolis, at a time when the viceregal munificence was exhibited as in some cases by the giving of a leg of beef at Christmas to their mendacity establishment, was such an advantage as to compensate the people of Ireland for the evil which arose through the pernicious influence of Castle intrigue over the country. It was not sufficient to compensate them for the tampering with trial by Jury, with the purity of the Bench, and with the well administration of justice throughout the land—whether such tampering were the act of the Attorney General or of the most insignificant policeman who suborns to perjury. Though he did not, he would repeat, consider the pecuniary advantage attendant on the residence of the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin sufficient to compensate the country for those evils, still he was an advocate for the existence of a Viceregal Court in the Irish Metropolis, because he thought that under a better system it must be beneficial to the people, when it was controlled by the presence of a local Parliament, and when the atmosphere of the Castle was purified by a purer air being breathed into it. He was an advocate for a continuance of the office, because, representing as he did the opinions of some 300,000 or 400,000 of the Irish people, he was convinced that his countrymen generally wished to maintain the representative of Government among them—because they wished to have on all occasions an opportunity, when they were well governed, of showing their respect for their Sovereign through the representative, and because he knew that this semblance of loyalty was ever dear to the Irish people, who have always shown themselves to be bound by an affectionate regard to the Throne of these realms if they were but governed in a spirit of fairness and justice.

did not conceive that any reply had been made to the case which he had brought forward, and all his arguments remained sound and unshaken, but under the circumstances he should not press the House to a division.

Motion withdrawn.

proposed to postpone his Motion respecting an opinion given by this learned Judge when practising as a Counsel, respecting certain bills at Kilkenny until Thursday next, but this was objected to, and the hon. Member pressed to go on. He said, that if it was the wish of the House he would at once proceed with his Motion. He wished to call the attention of the House to some proceedings in which the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland was engaged when practising as a Counsel at the Irish Bar. He felt repugnant to bring forward a public charge against a distinguished character, who, in all the relations of private life, was a most exemplary and respectable man; but if hon. Gentlemen were in the habit of letting their private feelings govern them in matters involving public considerations, they might as well remain at their country houses as come up to that House. He thought that the House had the right to require from him the grounds on which he brought forward his Motion. He would, therefore, at once enter upon his statement with brevity, and he hoped he should explain with clearness the reasons which induced him to believe that the document which formed the subject-matter of his Motion was in existence, and why he called for its production. It appeared that some twenty- five years ago, the Corporation of Kilkenny was at variance with the inhabitants of that City as to certain Tolls which the Corporation levied. They found some difficulty in making the inhabitants pay these Tolls, as the latter believed that the Corporation had no right or authority to demand these Tolls. At that time Mr. Edward Penne-father was an eminent lawyer, and had an extensive practice in the Courts, and he was also connected with the Corporation of Cashel. His family obtained great influence in the County of Tipperary in consequence of their long connection with the Corporation of Cashel. On this account it was probable that the Corporation of Kilkenny, when it determined to consult Counsel, thought it advisable to obtain the opinion of this Gentleman, as they would suppose that he entertained more peculiar sympathies with them in this case than it was probable a more disinterested individual would possess. A case was therefore drawn up and submitted to this learned Gentleman, and a copy of the advice which he gave he held in his hand. That opinion was in favour of the claim of the Corporation. He would now proceed to state the grounds why he had reason to believe that this opinion was still in existence. Soon after this opinion had been given, he was requested by a number of the inhabitants of the City of Kilkenny to stand at the then election as a candidate, on the independent interest, to represent them in Parliament, against that distinguished and eloquent man Mr. Doherty, who was supported by the Corporation. On the termination of the polling, that Gentleman was declared the sitting Member by the Sheriff, and he (Mr. Butler) petitioned against the return. In consequence of this, it was found necessary to obtain the Speaker's warrant to overhaul the papers of the Corporation, and he and some friends of his and his agents proceeded to do so. Amongst the Gentlemen who proceeded to the inspection was an hon. Friend of his who was now the representative of a county in Ireland, and the very first paper which his hon. Friend took up was this opinion of Mr. Pennefather. This paper at the time made some noise, and much surprise was manifested by persons in Kilkenny that a lawyer, of the learned Gentleman's eminence, should have been induced to give such an opinion. It became a subject of general conversation, and much regret was expressed that any learned counsel should have made such a suggestion respecting, a witness. In the course of the late extraordinary State Trials in Ireland, when party feeling was much excited, and observations were made respecting the conduct of the Judges, some Gentlemen recollected the circumstances attending this opinion, and spoke very freely on the subject. In the course of a few days afterwards, what purported to be a copy of this opinion appeared in one of the principal Dublin papers, and two days afterwards it was copied into two of the leading London papers, namely, the Morning Chronicle and the Sun, both of which subsequently had articles commenting on the subject. He might be told that he should have written to the Lord Chief Justice, to inquire into the correctness of the statement, before he gave notice of his Motion; but he did not do so, for the matter was before the public, and could not be considered of a private nature. If, however, he had taken such a course, and had written to the Lord Chief Justice, he thought that it was probable that the reply which he would have received, would have been to the effect suggested by the hon. Member for Finsbury, in reference to another matter, namely, "what is that to you?'' He would now proceed to read to the House a letter which he had received from the mayor of Kilkenny respecting this opinion. It was as follows:—

"My dear Sir—You have, I am sure, seen before this the case and the instructions of the Chief Justice in the Kilkenny corporation affair, as it is now published in all the Irish newspapers, and I suppose will be in the English with comments; but here they are afraid to do it. I long since gave an order for it, as mayor, to the town clerk, and sent to our friend a copy. We hold the original. I hope some noise will be made about it— analogy is most extraordinary with late occurrences."

"To P. S. Butler, esq., M. P.

He would point out what the analogy was. It was the opinion of the people of Ireland, that a Chief Justice who could give such an opinion when he was consulted, as a lawyer, would not be very scrupulous in the administration of justice. He did not state this was his own opinion, but he believed that it was the feeling of the people of Ireland. The paragraph to which he objected had been published in the public journals, and he would proceed to read it to the House:—

"OPINION AND ADVICE.—The proofs that defendants should be prepared to make are— 1st, the charter of James I., if the original is enrolled in the Auditor General or Rolls Office. An attested and compared copy should be produced and proved in the usual way; if the original be not enrolled, but amongst the corporation papers, it should be produced; but still a copy of it proved to be such, should be produced for very few can read the original; and if the original be in Latin, a translation, proved to be correct, should be produced.

"N.B.—I advise that a person should be produced to prove that he has made search amongst the corporation papers, the records at the Rolls or Auditor General's Office, and in the Birmingham Tower, for any anterior patent; and that none such has been found. Good care should be taken to employ some one in this search who has never heard of the charter of James II., and wherever he goes to search, that charter should be kept out of his way, for it would greatly embarrass the case, and, in fact, falsify the pleas, which all state, that since the charter of James I. the corporation have held under it; and considering how the charter of James II. has been repudiated, it would not be safe or easy for the corporation to plead they ever accepted or held under it.

"It often happens that persons best acquainted with corporation usages and rights are members of the corporation; to render them competent witnesses, they must first be disfranchised. I think, however, I should be disinclined to call as a witness any one acquainted with the charter of James II., or who, at least, is aware that it was ever acted upon.

"EDWARD PENNEFATHER.

"February 28,1820."

It appeared to him, that had he met with such a document as this, in the novel called Ten Thousand a Year, as the production of Messrs. Quirk, Gammon, and Snap, he should have been greatly surprised at such an extreme case of professional sharpness; but he was very much surprised, indeed, when he saw it as having emanated from the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland. It was, in his opinion, very desirable that an authentic copy of the original opinion should be laid before the House, supposing the original document still to be in existence. Having thus stated the facts of the case, he hoped in a manner not offensive to any person, he would conclude with moving for a copy of an opinion and advice given by Mr. Pennefather, the present Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, on the 28th day of February, 1820, in a case of toll, namely, "Pembroke v. Kings-mill," in which the corporation of Kilkenny was interested, the original of which is in the possession of the present mayor and corporation of the city of Kilkenny.

apprehended that it would be impossible for the House to assent to this Motion. The document required was the opinion confidentially given by a Counsel to his clients, and he would submit, that to call for the public production of such a document was as unprecedented as it would be a dangerous example. And let him call the attention of the House to this point— under what circumstances had the existence of this document been ascertained by the parties referred to. A Speaker's warrant having been given to certain parties, empowering them to examine papers connected with a particular matter, on elections, they make use of it for the purpose of examining documents in no way whatever connected with that matter; and they then apply the information obtained in this manner in a way which the hon. Gentleman had himself stated to the House. Whether the House would lend its sanction to such a proceeding as this, by acceding to the present Motion, remained to be seen. There were Gentlemen present who would more fully explain the circumstances under which this opinion was given, and the grounds for it, than he could; but as he understood the case, it was briefly this:—the Corporation of Kilkenny claimed certain Tolls in right of a Charter granted by James I. James II. issued a subsequent Charter, but this the Corporation repudiated, and had always exercised the rights they possessed under the Charter of James I. A dispute having arisen, Mr. Pennefather was called upon for his opinion, and he advised the Corporation, in order to keep the case clear from the needless embarrassment of having it mixed up with what did not affect it at all, to confine itself to proving the authenticity of the Charter of James I., and to keep clear of the other irrelevant question of the Charter of James II. This was the sole meaning and purpose of his opinion. He (Lord Eliot) would take the opportunity of saying, that even the Chief Justice's political opponents admitted that no man's character stood higher than his, as well for professional skill as for personal honour, and he was, therefore, sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have thought it his duty to bring forward a Motion which at least suggested, if it did not directly make, the charge against the Chief Justice of dishonourable conduct.

had no fault to find with the manner or language of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, in bringing forward the Motion; on the contrary, he gave him credit for feeling what the hon. Member professed—respect for the high character and professional eminence of Chief Justice Pennefather—but he deprecated the Motion itself, as an unworthy attempt to overawe and defeat justice in an important cause now pending in Ireland. He did not attribute those motives to the hon. Gentleman who had brought it forward, for he was a very new Member, whom he believed did not understand the meaning of the opinion in question, nor the object of those who had placed it under false colouring, and for a malicious purpose, before the public. First, what were the facts of the case? Four and twenty years ago the present Chief Justice, then Mr. Pennefather, practising at the Bar, gave confidential directions for proofs in an action by his clients, the Corporation of Kilkenny, under the following circumstances:—It was an action for tolls, and the Corporation had to prove at the trial the patent under which they held. They, in fact, held under a patent of James I., and had repudiated a patent granted them by James II., and that the same repudiation had occurred frequently, both in Ireland and England, was a matter of history. It was necessary to give formal proof that there was no anterior patent to James I., which, in fact, there was not, and Mr. Pennefather directed that to be proved by a person who was a stranger to the existence of the bad patent of James II., and that the repudiated patent should be kept out of his way, lest his mentioning it on cross-examination should embarrass the case; but it was no part of the proof to be given that there was no charter subsequent to James I. Nor was it intended, as would appear from the opinion, that the witness should give any such evidence, but merely that there was no anterior patent. No counsel would advise a client to produce evidence against himself. He understood from the most eminent men in the profession that they had given similar directions, and considered the direction perfectly correct; that directions of proofs were every day given on the same principle, a familiar example of which was in actions for use and occupation of a house or premises, where there was a written agreement between the parties unstamped, which, if it came out on cross-examination, would defeat the action, although it was perfectly just that the plaintiff should recover on oral evidence of the occupation, and there it was always directed that the fact of the occupation should be proved by a witness who was not aware of the written agreement. The opinion had been given so long ago, that the Chief Justice could have no recollection whether or not it was in the words stated in the newspapers; but he took no objection to the words themselves. The whole malice lay in the manner in which they were distorted by means of italics, large Roman letters, and false marks —slurring over in small print the two important features to explain the opinion, viz., that it was an anterior patent to James I. the witness was to depose to the non-existence of, and that the subsequent patent of James II., had been repudiated, which could only embarrass the proofs without furthering the ends of justice. The hon. Gentleman who had been put forward on the present occasion, he was persuaded had himself misunderstood the opinion—as nine out of ten persons would on the first reading, from the deceitful way in which it was printed. The hon. Member had, however, the justice to bear testimony to the professional and personal character of the Chief Justice, and he was bold to affirm that at the Bar of either country there never was a higher-minded practitioner than Mr. Edward Pennefather—nor a man more distinguished in every relation of life for the purity and integrity of his conduct. He had himself, when practising at the Irish Bar—now nearly twenty years ago—heard Mr. O'Connell declare, in a case where his conduct had been objected to in the Court by an attorney for taking a brief, as the attorney alleged, improperly against his client— that he would leave the point to the decision of Mr. Pennefather, as the first authority of the Bar upon a question of propriety of practice, and abide by whatever his decision was—and yet that was the man who now, because the papers of the Corporation of Kilkenny had happened to fall into the hands of repealers and political supporters of Mr. O'Connell, was attempted to be run down by them as a low and tricky practitioner—merely because he was presiding at the State Trials now holding in Ireland. He denounced it as a part of a system of intimidation which from the first had been practised in respect of those trials. He would beg permission of the House to read on that subject an extract from a private letter which he had received from Chief Justice Pennefather, and which he hoped the Chief Justice would excuse him for reading, as he thought it important the House and the public should know the fact. It was in the following words:—

"This Motion is in its character quite in keeping with much that has preceded it. I have during the course of these trials since their commencement received letters of violent abuse, and very serious threats and menaces, both towards myself and my family. Public insult has been offered to me in my judicial capacity; but of none of this have I made any complaint: it could have no effect on me in the conscientious discharge of my duty, though I feel the prejudice and injury which are offered to the administration of justice."

He trusted the House would scout the Motion; if they for a moment encouraged it, they would outrage the course of justice; but he defied them to fix a stain— for it was impossible they could—upon the personal character of Mr. Pennefather.

had taken no part in the Irish discussions, but he could not refrain from expressing an opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had treated his hon. Friend in a most uncandid and most unjustifiable manner. The hon. Gentleman, in the most moderate manner, had simply asked for authentic information upon a point which appeared a very natural subject for inquiry, under the circumstances; yet his Motion was met by the right hon. Gentleman with the most vituperative language, while motives of the most discreditable character were, off hand, ascribed to those who merely required that the truth of the matter should be ascertained. The right hon. Gentleman did not deny that Mr. Pennefather had, in his opinion, advised, at all events, that certain truths should be kept out of the way of a particular witness. A certain document, whether it was repudiated or not by the corporation was not the question, was to be concealed, in the prosecution of a case which yet purported to have for its object the eliciting and declaration of the whole truth. The advice might be prudent advice for a lawyer to give, but if the law was really to be had recourse to for the investigation and triumph of the truth, if decisions were really to be arrived at by gathering together all the facts, all the truth of the case, then all the truths, ought to be brought forward, and there should be no concealment. There was something, indeed, in the noble Lord's objection founded upon the circumstance of this opinion being a confidential document between a counsel and his clients which ought not to be made public, but the abuse and vituperation which the right hon. Gentleman thought proper to indulge, seemed to him (Dr, Bowring) as reprehensible as it was uncalled for.

said, it was impossible that he could remain silent on this subject, having known Chief Justice Pennefather for the whole of his life, and being also connected with him. If the opinion which was the ground of this Motion had borne the interpretation which had been put upon it, he would not have risen in that House to defend it, and he was sure that his own character would lead hon. Members to believe that. At the same time, he must say, that though he had not the honour of knowing the hon. Member who had brought forward this Motion, he knew him sufficiently to be assured, that the hon. Member would not have brought it forward if he did not think that he was justified in doing so. He was desirous to speak on this subject as temperately as possible, but it was impossible to believe—seeing what he saw in the papers —that this subject had been brought forward without some object. The parties who had brought forward this subject were not satisfied with publishing the real opinion, but they introduced part of that opinion in italics, which had so misled him that when he read it he thought it impossible that it could have come from the pen of a man whom, for the whole of his life, he had known as a most honorable man, and to whose character a just tribute had been paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and (before those State Trials commenced) by the hon. Member for Cork himself. From the way in which this case had been published in the papers, that which was introduced in italics had led him (Mr. Darby) and others to suppose that what the Corporation were advised to conceal was the anterior document, and which anterior document it now appeared did not exist. Now with respect to the Charter of James II., it was known to exist. It was known that James II. forced Charters on the Corporations, and that these Charters were repudiated. Any one might satisfy himself on this subject by referring to Hume's history. He had the passage in his hand, but he would not trouble the House by reading it. It was well known that the Corporations repudiated these Charters, and that they had never accepted them. Now, with respect to this particular case, the Corporation of Kilkenny pleaded the Charter of James I. The Charter of James II. they had not pleaded. It was a document that had no force, and on which they did not rest their claim. Now what was the advice given? That they should send some person to search the records to give mere formal proof that no patent anterior to that of James I. was in existence. They were advised that they should send some mere formal clerk to make this proof. The advice went to this, that they should nut allow that document, the Charter of James II., to be produced; that it was not the document under which they claimed; that it was a document that had no force; and that if they did produce it, some embarrassment might be produced. The Corporation were advised to send a person to give this proof who had not seen the Charter of James II. This advice was perfectly right—it was advice which the Counsel was bound to give, and he would have been guilty of a dereliction of his duty to his clients if he had not given that advice. It should be recollected that they were not advised to keep anything out of view on which the merits of the case depended. The merits of the case depended on the Charter of James I. The Charter of James II. was a piece of waste paper that had no force, and it was right that they should be advised not to produce it, as its production would only embarrass their case. In the way in which the opinion had been published in the newspapers its character was so altered, by dint of italics and capital letters, that he had been totally misled, and when first he saw it, he said at the time, that he did not believe that it was the opinion of Chief Justice Pennefather. When he read further, however, he found that the Charter of James II. had nothing to do with the case; for that the Corporations had repudiated the Charter of James II. was a matter of history. He gave the hon. Member opposite full credit for the spirit and manner in which he had brought forward the case— at the same time that he (Mr. Darby) must say, that it was a monstrous thing, that at this particular time, when a man had been for fifty years a member of the profession of the Bar, and against whose character not a word had been uttered during that time—it was monstrous that at this particular time the whole course of his professional opinions should be raked through, and that this particular opinion should be raked out of the documents in possession of the Kilkenny Corporation— an opinion which had been given nearly a quarter of a century ago, and then, instead of printing it, as it ought to have been done, fairly according to the original, an attempt was made, by means of italics and capitals, to produce a misconception, and to create a prejudice on the public mind upon the subject. What was meant or intended by doing this it was not for him (Mr. Darby) to say. If this attempt had succeeded, in inflicting dishonour upon anybody, it was not upon Chief Justice Penne-father, but upon those who had dressed up the document, in order to mislead the public on the subject. If dishonour could fall upon any one it was on those who had so acted, and not on Chief Justice Penne-father, on whose character there was no stain.

said, whatever difference of opinion existed on the matter he believed one thing would be allowed, and that was, that if the opinion were an improper opinion, and recommended an unfair proceeding, or what amounted to the same thing, a suppressio veri, that then the length of time that had elapsed since that opinion had been given should be no bar to its being now brought forward. Much stress had been laid on the shape in which the document had been printed, and the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had gone the length of saying that it had been mutilated and altered, because the printer had thought proper to print a portion of it in a particular sort of character; but the simple answer to that was—let the Motion be agreed to, and then they should see what the document was when it was placed in its entirety before the House. Another objection which was entitled to some weight, though it had not been relied upon very strongly, was, why the subject had not been brought forward earlier? The answer was simply this:—the proper and, perhaps, the most useful time for bringing the document before the House would have been at the elevation of Mr. Pennefather to the Beach, but it should be recollected that at that time the document was in the hands of the same Corporation to whom the opinion had been originally given, and could not be seen or rendered available, so as to authenticate the recollections of those who remembered having seen it in the Corporation papers long before. Last year was the first year that the Municipal Reform Act came into operation in Kilkenny, and until then its documents could not have been seen for any inspection of their papers had been always pertinaciously refused by the former Corporation. Having thus explained the reason why the subject had not been brought forward at an earlier stage, he would next revert to the arguments that had been relied on by hon. Members opposite. In doing so, he would not indulge in the feeling in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Recorder of Dublin) had expressed himself in so uncalled-for a manner, respecting the motives of hon. Members on that side of the House, in bringing forward the present Motion. It was said, that the Charter of James II. was of no avail—that it was worth nothing, and that its concealment did not, therefore, imply any fraud, but if that were so what harm would there be in letting it be seen. If it had not been acknowledged some time or other, where was the necessity for so much ingenuity in putting it out of the way of the person making the search? If it were not acknowledged what harm would have resulted from letting it be produced in Court? But the fact was, the Corporation of Kilkenny had been in the habit of either accepting or repudiating that Charter just as it happened to suit their convenience. They adopted the two Charters for their purpose, and they had the Charter of James I. in one hand, and the Charter of James II. in the other, and they used either, just as they found it to give them some immunity or otherwise, to suit their immediate purpose. In the case in which the opinion in question had been given, it appeared that the Charter of James II. gave an immunity from the toll, while the Charter of James I. gave, as they alleged, the right to the toll, and it was on that account, that the Charter of James II. was advised to be kept out of the way. That the concealment of the late Charter was a material point in this case was evident from the words of the opinion, for it directed that "Good care should be taken to employ some one in this search who had never heard of the Charter of James II., and wherever he goes to search, it, therefore, should be kept out of his way, for it would greatly embarrass the case, and, in fact, falsify the pleas." Now, if these pleas were false and wrong pleas, was it not clear that the ends of justice required they should be exposed, as they would be by the production of the Charter of James II., or by evidence of that Charter having been acted under, and were not the ends of justice, therefore, defeated by the concealment of that Charter? He would ask, what should be the opinion of the character of the man who would advise deliberately that a document of that material nature should be withheld. If it were in the power of the Corporation to produce—if it had been a document in their archives, they might be to some extent excusable for not producing it against themselves; but where the search was to take place, not amongst the documents in the keeping of the Corporation, but where the person to make the search was to go to public records, to the Auditor General's Office, to the Office of the Rolls, and among the national documents in Birmingham Tower, where the records of Ireland are preserved for public inspection, what is to be thought of the man who could recommend that a direct falsification of that search, and an abstraction of a public document from those records should be made, and that, too, in favour of a title to which it would appear the Corporation had no sort of right whatever? And yet was not such the fact? Would hon. Gentlemen tell him that a lawyer was to be justified in advising that in a case where it would appear a party had made two wills, the later will was to be abstracted from the public office where it was properly kept in order that the plea of a party holding under an antecedent will should not be injured? If they considered the parity of the two cases, what difference would they find between them, except that in the case before them it was not merely private paper, but a public document that was to be extracted from the repository of the archives of the country which the wisdom of the law orders is to be open for the inspection of every individual, and if, was from such a repository that the Charter in question was to be filched and abstracted. The right hon. Recorder bad, to be sure, told them what his own experience was while he was practising as a Barrister.—[Mr. Shaw—I said nothing at all about it.] — He did not intend to insinuate any thing derogatory to the practice of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He had, at all events, told them that he had consulted Irish Barristers of extrusive practise, and that they, the leaders of the profession in Ireland, had given it as their opinion, that such conduct as that of Mr. Pennefather was quite a customary matter. He would be glad to know who the eminent lawyers were that gave that opinion, though perhaps that was a question the right hon. and learned Recorder could not answer there. He might be regarded as not being a perfectly fair witness on the matter, and after the charge made by the learned Recorder against hon. Members on that side of the House, he supposed he was not considered a fair witness in the case; but as far as his opinion would be taken, he would say, that from what he knew of the Irish Bar—and he had the honour of being a Member of it himself, though his practice might not be as extensive as that of the right hon. Recorder—he had heard but one opinion expressed on the subject, and that was surprise and astonishment that a man with such a professional character as Mr. Pennefather had always borne, could have given such an opinion, and it was attributed to one of those weaknesses which at particular moments may triumph over the best of us. There appeared to be a general wish to pass it over in charitable silence; but as far as his acquaintance with the Irish Bar went—and it was pretty extensive— the universal feeling appeared to be against any Barrister advising such practices? He believed that farther matter might be even adduced of another Member of the Irish Bar, who had been consulted on that occasion, and who refused to give an opinion containing any direction on the subject, considering it derogatory to his professional character to do so. It was at least so stated to him, and he was told that the fact could be substantiated by the production of the document. It was mentioned in a Kilkenny newspaper twenty years ago, and was spoken of lately in the hall of the Four Courts in Dublin, on quite as good authority as the learned Recorder could produce to substantiate his assertions.— After the opposition that had been given to the Motion, he of course would advise his hon. Friend not to press it to a division. He would do so because, in the first place, they would be sure to be defeated, which was always a good reason for not going to a division: and secondly, because he perceived that the feeling of the House was opposed to them. He was not frequently in the habit of troubling the House by any observations but he felt that he should not remain silent after the observations of the learned Recorder and the hon. Gentleman who had last sat down. They wished to make it appear that the attempt to conceal the Charter of James the Second was a trifling matter of ordinary occurrence, recommended lest it might perhaps embarrass the case, but they had the opinion itself, stating that the production of the Charter would entirely falsify the pleas, and they had also the fact of one person being put upon his oath in a Court of Justice, swearing solemnly to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, while he was led by the advice of his counsel into something approaching to perjury, in swearing to the non-existence of a document that had been purposely removed from his view.

believed the hon. Member opposite misunderstood the position in which the case really stood. Nothing was more common or more necessary in courts of law, than to object to the introduction of matter which was not material to the case, or which was altogether irrelevant. He would admit, that nothing could be more improper than for counsel to advise, under pretence of searching for evidence, to keep it out of the way, and, yet pretend that search was made for it. This was not the case as regarded the subject before them, for there was no desire to keep any evidence applicable to the case out of the way. The question was, as to whether there was any charter anterior to that of James I., under which the Corporation of Kilkenny had acted. It was quite a different thing to keep out of the way a document which was altogether immaterial to the case, in order that it might not be encumbered with unnecessary evidence. The witness was to search for a charter anterior to the charter of James I., and there was no allegation that any advice was given to keep any such document out of the way if it existed. The whole question, then, turned on the word anterior, and it was not stated that there was any interference with the witness in searching for any such document. The impression which the hon. Member who spoke last appeared desirous to make was, that evidence which was really material had been kept out of the way when the witness was directed to search for it.

repelled, on the part of the hon. Gentlemen who supported the Motion, the imputation of the right hon. Recorder that it was brought forward and supported for the purpose of intimidation. He never saw the Motion until that night, and yet he would support it, because it contained an allegation against an individual holding a very high position, the truth of which allegation it was most important for the public to have investigated. Under the circumstances, however favourable he might be to the Motion, he would not advise his Friend to press it to a division.

was unfortunately not in the House at the commencement of the discussion, but what he had heard since he came in was most astounding. It would appear that counsel had advised getting up a surreptitious case. It was quite evident that directions had been given to have a certain important charter kept out of the way, and was not that evidently an attempt to disguise the truth? [Mr. Shaw: You did not read all the case.] He had read the case attentively, and he would say, whatever hon. Members opposite might think of it, that a more disgraceful or disgusting case never came within his observation in connection with any counsel.

said, the right hon. Recorder appeared to take the chance of the hon. Member (Mr. Blewitt) not having read all the case when he charged him with not having been acquainted with the whole of it. In his opinion, the case ought to be laid fully before the public, in order that they might be able to form an impartial opinion on the subject. That discussion would go before the public, and they would thus have practically as good an opportunity of judging of it as if the advice and opinion were formally laid before the House. He did not think that the right hon. Recorder had done Chief Justice Pennefather much good by reading that letter, for if ever there was an act which might be called dangerous and indiscreet on the part of a friend, it was reading that letter. It might have done very well for the Operative Conservative Society, in Dublin, but it was not so well adapted for being produced here.

explained. When the hon. Member for Monmouth alluded to an extract only from the account of the case which had been published, he thought he had not read it all, as, if he had, that he would not have alluded to one portion of it alone.

had come down to the House for the purpose of supporting the Motion; but he had been misled by the mode in which the document had been printed in italics; and he must say, the explanation he had heard was perfectly satisfactory.

Motion negatived.

House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.